Arizona and the Immigration Debate

(The following is a post I made on MSNBC in response to a story about the current Arizona immigration law. I literally read every comment on the site prior to writing my response. The issue is obviously a hot-button topic, because many comments were filled with anger and resentment on either side of the issue.)

In its simplest, The Federal Govt. has failed to properly confront the problem; so The State of Arizona is exercising its State Constitutional RIGHT to address the issue of ILLEGAL Immigration.

Special Interest groups have flooded the media with propagandized statements about the Unconstitutionality of the law; and the media in turn splash image after image of sad looking illegals in an attempt to sway public opinion. Special Interest groups be damned if they side with people who have sidestepped the legal requirements toward citizenship.

President George Washington, one of our Founding Fathers said, "Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals." The Arizona law, passed by consent of the people, is indeed being trampled on by individuals and Special Interest Groups who seek to impose their personal will upon the majority of the citizenry. How, in any conceivable logic, can these individuals be granted such power?

The current problem exists not because of Obama, but because of President Ronald Reagan giving blanket amnesty to some 2.5 million illegals in the mid-eighties simply because no one was willing to properly confront the issue at that time. With his amnesty proclamation, the proverbial floodgates were thrown wide open, and the current immigration problem we have today was begun.

All the citizens of this country are asking is that anyone entering this country do so having used the proper legal channels, and go through the citizenship process as currently mandated by Federal Law. Anyone who screams "human rights!" in defense of those people who fail to enter legally, does not truly support the wishes of the citizens of the United States, nor the laws that govern us all.

What price do we, as a nation, pay if the problem of illegal immigration is either ignored, or swept aside in favor of "rights" that non-citizens have in this country? What possible outcome exists that benefits Americans if our public infrastructure is bankrupted by the growing tide of illegal immigration? Benjamin Franklin, another of our Founding Fathers stated, "Even peace may be purchased at too high a price." In this case, what is the price for peace if our nation's leaders turn a blind eye to, or our courts allow for the "rights" of non-citizens to prevail?

However you feel about this issue, no matter which camp you're in, the very basics of the immigration issue are about what is legal, according to US law, and what is illegal. That's it. Anyone screaming anything more than this basic definition is efforting a personal agenda.

Another Apology

I must offer an apology to my readers once again. My entries on this blog have been few and far between once again. My only defense is that, it is a reflection of how I have been feeling.

Writing on my other blog is easy when I'm simply giving info. When I have to be more journalistic (as on this blog), then it takes more mental energy than I've been able to muster up from day to day.

Hang in there with me. I've got lots of things rattling around in my head than need discussing; and I'll get to them as I feel up to it. In the mean time, please feel free to send your questions or thoughts (through the 'Comments' link) about current events. I'll answer them either there, or as a blog in and of itself.

Until then, I send my very best to each and every one of you.

Thank You.

ScottW

Civil Rights for Air Travelers?

I have a real issue with the Transportation Security Administration.


The TSA, created out of the fear mongering by Gee Dubya Bushie and Henchmen following the 2001 attacks in NY, DC and Pennsylvania, are ratcheting up the ante in its ongoing attack on the Bill of Rights with its installation of full body scanners in airports around the country.


An article in the Wall Street Journal is the latest in a number of media pieces that are seeking to stir up the citizenry of the United States to stand up to the TSA for its blatant supposition that every person flying has a terrorist agenda. Basically, we are guilty until proven innocent.




If I don't want a body scan, I am required to do a pat-down as if I were a criminal. What about my civil rights? Why am I being treated like a criminal without the slightest bit of evidence? Treat everyone like criminals in the name of paranoid safety concerns? It's happening right now; and most citizens don't think twice about it. Next thing you know, cars traveling across the country will be stopped at every state border crossing.

I say that the citizens of the United States start a write-in campaign to their Congressional leaders to demand a basic restructuring of the TSA (if not a complete elimination) so that they are better at identifying real threats to our airline safety, instead of targeting six year olds whose name inexplicably somehow winds up on a terror watch list; or an eight year old cub scout who also is identified as a terrorist.

Yeah...great job TSA! Way to protect us from marauding six year olds! You guys are really on the ball!

In the mean time, they force humiliating searches and pat-downs on Americans who want nothing more than to get to their intended destinations with as little hassle as possible.

Where is the ACLU in all of this? They should be screaming "Injustice!" So far, I haven't read a single reference to their involvement in the stripping of air travelers' civil rights. Why Not? The ACLU will fight vehemently for individuals whose rights are being so trampled on that they seek to enforce their personal will and thinking upon the entire country (that's another blog all together!); but they won't stand up for the majority of citizens? What's up with that? So I ask again, why isn't the ACLU all over this?

Please-- write your Senator! Write your Representative! Tell them to stop the stampeding of our civil rights! If you don't stand up and speak, nothing will ever get done about this!

The Myth of Being Too Young To Die

Two days ago, sailing enthusiasts around the globe held their collective breaths as they awaited to hear the fate of 16 year old Abby Sunderland, who is attempting a solo round the world sailing adventure. She was in the Indian Ocean in 30 foot swells when contact was lost. Shortly thereafter, a manually triggered emergency beacon was triggered, and location overflights were launched, boats dispatched and a media frenzy ensued.


They asked, "Should a child be allowed to sail alone for thousands of miles?" What if she dies out there; alone, afraid. Who would be responsible?" and so forth. The same questions arose when 13 year old Jordan Romero summited Mt. Everest last month. He was too young, too innocent, etc.


You see, there is a myth, perpetuated constantly by nearly everyone that children and teenagers are too young to die. That it is unfair if something tragic happens. That these kids have too much life left to live. It is human nature to protect our young. Similar to nearly every species on the earth, we nurture, teach and guide. When a young one dies, we all grieve. It's a natural process for all species.


However, somewhere along the way, we have embraced the thought that our children should not die early in their lives. That it is actually unfair if they do. This misguided thinking only serves to spread fear and lay blame at the feet of parents, governments, etc. In the argument against young adventurers going out and challenging the world, there is one element that is missing...Personal Responsibility.

These young men and women are ready and eager to test their skills and experience in ways that would make most adults cringe. Yet, they strive and excel at doing what they love the most, and they are called irresponsible. Their parents are tagged as unfit for allowing their children to go on such dangerous adventures; and any government officials who grant permits for certain activities are labeled as careless or remiss in their judgment.

When I was a teenager, I grew to be expertly proficient at cross country hiking. No trails, no compass. A topographical map and an acute sense of direction were my only guides. Though I would almost always go hiking with a partner, I would occasionally go it alone and end up exactly where I wanted, at exactly when I said I would arrive. My parents had absolutely no qualms about my doing this because they were supremely confident in my ability to take care of myself. So it is with the parents of these young adventurers.

Does that make them bad parents? Of course not! Are these experienced, knowledgeable kids being reckless for undertaking such risks? Absolutely not!

They understand the risks involved (as do their parents), and take every conceivable precaution in anticipation of potential life-threatening circumstances. But they choose to go, fully prepared, to face the challenges and adventures that lie ahead of them, fully aware that should something go wrong, they may not survive.

Personal responsibility is the issue here, folks--NOT irresponsible behavior or bad parenting. These kids are choosing to place themselves in harm's way for a payoff that most cannot comprehend...the achievement of goals so unattainable that few, of any age, ever attempt the undertaking.

I applaud these young men and women for their vision, courage, and their willingness to push the proverbial envelope a little further. I congratulate their parents for encouraging their children to follow their passions, and pursue their dreams. To me, those men and women are amongst the greatest parents in the world!

*It turns out Abby Sunderland is alive and well. Her boat had lost its rigging and she was drifting. Rescue boats have arrived, and she is receiving assistance.

June 6th

66 years ago today, Operation Overlord was launched.

On June 6th, 1944, American and Allied forces stormed the beaches of Normandy, France as the move to penetrate Fortress Europe was begun.

Many men died on the five beaches designated Juno, Gold, Omaha, Utah and Sword. Nearly 5300 American and Allied men lost their lives on those cold, wind swept beaches.

As I was looking through the days news, I failed to find even a single mention of D-Day. This great and terrible battle is being forgotten here in the US.

So please pause, even for a moment, to remember those brave men who lie in graves upon French soil; both Allied and German.

The beginning of the end of the war in Europe.

D-Day 06 June 1944.

Memorial Day

Today, Memorial Day 2010, let us all pause for at least a few moments to remember just why we are celebrating a holiday.

Remember all the brave men and women, dutifully serving their country, who paid the ultimate sacrifice so that we can have and enjoy the freedoms (and responsibilities) that we have every day simply because we belong to the greatest democracy in the world, The United States of America.

From the War of Independence to the Afghanistan War; from the Minutemen at Concord to the unsung hero's dying in covert missions across the globe;...

We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to all of these brave soldiers of every service!

Thank You for Your Service.

Thank You for Your Sacrifice!

You will never be forgotten!

God Bless The United States of America!

North Korea: Sabre Rattling Anew

North Korea is at it again.

As per their usual song and dance, the regime of Kim Jong Il is at it again with their thinly veiled threats against South Korea. This time, it was, if we are to believe the claims of the South Korean government, the North that acted first in sinking a South Korean gunboat; supposedly in retaliation for a similar action last year by the South against the North.

No matter the cause, South Korea is on heightened military alert. In response, North Korea has declared that they will defend themselves against unfair and unwarranted aggression by South Korea. Then today US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while visiting Seoul, South Korea as part of a multi-nation political swing through Eastern Asia, denounced the provocative stance of the North and asked for "North Korea to end its policy of threats and take steps to fulfill its denuclearization commitments and comply with international law.
"North Korea can still choose another path. Instead of isolation, poverty conflict and condemnation, North Korea could enjoy integration, prosperity, peace and respect," she said. (NPR report 05/26/10)

This whole thing is far from over. I'm sure, after more tension and increasing threats, that North Korea will capitulate its position after receiving "assurances" of an increase of food supplies and cash in exchange for their cooperation.

If all of this sounds familiar that's because this is the exact same political/military cat and mouse game that North Korea plays every couple of years. They feign offense at something, state they'll retaliate, place their military on alert, then give the US and others time to formulate their response based on economic incentives for the North to back down; which they do.

Here's the basic problem with what North Korea is doing. Their government is the last remaining Stalinist-based body in the world. Their actions over the last 25 years or so have isolated them from even their neighbor to the North, China. Their actions have resulted in unceasing embargoes that deny any humanitarian or economic aid to a country so poor that their "non-elite" citizens are starving.

Any so-called aid from these stand-offs never reaches the people who need it most. It is generally funneled to the government and the military. Everyone else is just seemingly out of luck. Meanwhile reports of starvation, military oppression and inflation so rampant that most citizens can't even buy what food there is, come filtering in from those brave souls who risk life and limb to breach the DMZ in order to escape the growing inhumane conditions from which they fled.

I have heard rumblings that the very elderly Kim Jong Il has multiple health problems, and that his son, Kim Jong un, slated to take control in the event of his father's death, is rumored to have a more favorable, conciliatory regard to South Korea and the US. If this proves to be true, then once Kim Jong Il is dead, there is a possibility of thawing relations between the two enmitic states.

In the mean time, we will continue to see more of the same sabre rattling happening that we are witnessing today. In spite of the vitriolic rhetoric we are hearing, there will be no war, no military action, no invasions. The North will threaten, they will get what they are after, and everything will be all happy on the Korean Peninsula once again...Until, that is, Kim Jong Il finds some new excuse to justify yet another round of his menial, small-minded megalomania that only places his already oppressed citizenry at ever-increasing risk.

Continuing Consternation with Oil $ vs. Gas $

One of my original posts was about the disparity between a barrel of oil and the cost of a gallon of gas. Specifically, how when oil rises in price, gas quickly follows. Yet, when oil drops in price, gas takes weeks to drop even a few pennies.

Particularly troubling in this equation is that oil is typically purchased 30 days ahead of delivery. Theoretically then, we shouldn't see an increase in gasoline prices until 35-45 days after contract purchase (assuming the price of oil has risen), because the oil already being processed was paid for at a lower price per barrel. Yet, the same day a contract purchase increase occurs, we are seeing prices at the pump jump as well. Why?

I know that gasoline commodity shares are traded separately from oil; but they seem closely tied together whenever oil rises--but then look like two disparate entities when oil drops. Again...Why?

A few months ago, the price of gasoline in my area reached a peak average of about $3.17 per gallon (for regular unleaded). It has gone up to as much as $3.27 and as "low" as $3.09 Right now, the gas in my area is about .25 cents above the national average ($2.92).

Over the last few weeks, with increased uncertainty in Europe and the US, the price of oil has dropped from a high of $87.63 (?) per barrel, to the current price (at today's trading close) of $70.08. That's a 20% drop in the price per barrel. Yet, the gas in my area remains unchanged. Why?

If oil rose 20% you can be damned sure we'd see at least a 20% increase in the cost of our gasoline. Why does the reverse NOT hold true for a commodity so closely tied to oil futures?

I keep hearing all sorts of excuses coming from the oil companies as to why. They state things like Financial unrest in Greece, Uncertainty in China, Economic trouble in Europe due to the ash cloud from Iceland, etc. On Friday, I head another great excuse..."The further a market is from the refinery gasoline pipeline, naturally, the more the gas will cost in your area."

I know this excuse to be a load of poo, because there are four refineries in my area, just 55 miles away. That fact totally blows the oil industry's excuse right out of the water. Further, of the 5 states (in the continental US) with the highest average gas prices, four of them have at least 2 refineries operating in their borders. Makes me wonder what excuses we'll be hearing next...especially in those five states.

Meanwhile, the price per gallon of gasoline remains well above the national average. In the next two weeks, we're supposed to see a drop of about 10% in prices to an average of $2.64. Did I say that right? Yep--a mere 10% price reduction for a 20% drop in oil prices. That just doesn't seem right...probably because it isn't!

Let's look at the cost of gas from another angle. During the terrifying speculator-driven run-up of oil from 2006-2008, the price of oil peaked at about $147 per barrel. Gasoline was selling for about $4.45 average. That's about a 300% increase on both commodities from the pre-run-up prices of both.

Currently, oil prices are about 70% above pre-run-up prices; Yet gasoline is up 153%. (I used $1.15 per gallon gas, and $36 per barrel of oil as my basis for these numbers.) WHY? WHY? WHY? This makes no sense whatsoever. The only explanation that really makes any sense is that of corporate greed. No other reasonable explanation exists...as far as I am aware. In my opinion, the oil companies really like the massive profits they've been rolling in by the ship loads, and really don't want to give up those incredible net profits.

I'm sure there are other factors I'm not aware of; other influences I know nothing about. However, the numerical aspects do not lie. There IS a monstrous disparity between what oil costs, and what we pay at the pump. The gasoline markets are tied extremely closely when oil rises; but are disparate when oil falls. The excuses from oil companies continue to spew out rhetoric that just isn't true. And the American public seems to be the snicker doodles in the proverbial cookie jar that is Big Oil.

Guess who loses?